5 Years Later -- Are we any safer (A soldiers thoughts)

blah blah blah

 

The Bush Administration should be applauded for taking on terrorism head on. Are there things that could have been done better? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20. We are engaged in a kind of fight that has never been fought before. The strategies that existed for global terrorism sweeps pre 9/11 were elementary at best because of lack of concern/lack of response by the Clinton Administration. The very fact that Bush DID something about it rather than covering it up is admirable, but it did open them up to an unmeasurable amount of scrutiny from those that, instead of being proactive and offering assistance/aid/strategic planning, preferred to sit on the sidelines and berate and spin the administration for their own political agendas. Unfortunately, they succeeded in many ways, spawning idiot sheep across America to assume that it was "right" to hate Bush because he was a "fascist", "warmongerer", etc.

It's very sad, really. Even more than sad, it's frustrating as hell.

 

Nice retort. Once again you have proven to be the epitome of intelligent and lively debate. Your mother must be so proud.

"Some critics," huh? Mind looking up who those critics are? Because a "critic" can be anyone from your grandmother to the umpire at my nephew's little league game. Give me something of substance or go home. What's that? You don't have anything? Oh yeah, that's right...

 

Again with the personal attacks, when all else fails, just mention something about your oponents mother

Now that i've done all the work for you, I could of simply asked "prove it's terrorism"... but knowing how childish your usual responses are, why bother?

 

A very patriotic post.

You are deluded if you think starting a war in Iraq will lead to less people wanting to harm America.

You are deluded if you think your president took your troops into Iraq to prevent terrorist attacks on the US.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Your president wants you to think otherwise.

 

I didn't attack your mother, son. I just pointed out that she must be proud to have a debate-inept son (or daughter; I have no idea nor do I care).

As for your hastily Googled sources, the first two are obviously left-winged rhetoric. I don't care if the guy is teaching it in his class or not. It isn't correct.

The third, from Cornell, doesn't take into account a military vessel in a non-combatitive position. It was refeuling, for Christ's sake! You are basing your stance on the very sketchy topic that an UNPROVOKED attack is not considered terrorism.

Let's see, the WTC had armed guards on duty; does that make 9/11 a non-terrorist attack? In your futile "research" it does.

 

Not really. Just a realistic one.

I never said that. People will always hate America because it is the sole superpower. No getting around that. Don't put words into my mouth.

You have no proof otherwise because it doesn't exist. You have simply bought into the mounds of speculation by talking heads and America-haters. You, like them, have offered no compelling argument otherwise. Now, I will not say that it was the ONLY reason for the American occupation, but I do know that it was the primary. Plus, just try to denounce the FACT that Iraq is much better off without Saddam in power. You cannot.

And as much as I respect your unofficial opinion, I politely disagree.

 

Once again, you've failed to actually argue against the sources (that you asked for) intelligently, instead you spout off typical jargon like "left wing rhetoric" and again, take shots at me personally. Sorry, calling something "left winged" does NOT prove it false, want to try again?

Unprovoked huh?

Now do you care to actually make an intelligent arguement, perhaps with some actual sources, against what i've said, or are you going to continue with the pointless personal attacks and crybaby "that's not true because i say so" talk?

 

Don't you mean ignorant? Deluded, ignorant and a few others terms are about the othing adjectives you seem to be aware of.

Considering that those who attacked us were from the middle east, no, we took the war to them and centrally located.

That's not true either. I've noted quite a few sources here showing ties, including new ones this year. Work on your credibility. And source something every once and a while. Maybe someone will take you seriously then.

 

Have you ever, since your time here in the political section, had anything positive to say about America? Anything at all? If you can't source anything, I rest my case.

If you don't like it here, move and go whine somewhere else

 

Wow!....just Wow!

Your own president has recognized that 9/11 and Iraq had no connection whatsoever yet you 'politely disagree'. What the hell?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/ watch that video clip

Here's a excerpt from the video:
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

then read this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/20/9-11-and-saddam/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html

 

my words were in response to the original poster, not yours.

Its nice to see that you think anyone who disagrees with US foreign policy is an 'America-hater'. It shows your lack of refinement and general inability to debate such a complex issue.

 

You are the one who blindly agrees with any of your Governments policies, maybe you should move to russia or china?

 

How about we go back over one of your sources? The one that says:

http://globalfire.tv/nj/english.htm

Well, here are a few more of the articles from that site:

Jerusalem: Home of "The anti-Christ"? Location 666
http://globalfire.tv/nj/06en/religion/thebiest.htm

Is the "clash of civilizations" promoted by Jews?
http://globalfire.tv/nj/06en/jews/cartoons.htm

"There was no such a thing as the 'Holocaust,' The so-called
'Holocaust' is nothing but Jewish-Zionist propaganda"
http://globalfire.tv/nj/06en/jews/sindi.htm

Yo-yo, you've swung so far left, you've entered anti-Semitism!

Great research! Bravo!

 

No, I just stop morons like you dead in their tracks

The "blindly agrees" was the other one I was looking for. Package it up wtih deluded and ignorant and that's about the substance of your posts.

Work on your credibility

 

Do you like read the news, or do you just imagine stuff and believe thats how it is?

Where did I say that?

Well sort of debatable isn't people are being killed now at rate greater then they were under saddam. Also half a trillion dollars and 3000 americans were killed to achieve that.

 

Took up residence a while ago, actually.

 

Why would he want to move to russia or china when his pals in the white house are bring russia/china home to america?

 

Patriotism is hardly blind agreement. By your logic, anyone that agrees with his/her government is nothing better than an automaton.

 

You know what I think is really sad is people who can't seem to grasp that Iraq was mistake, and they are so afraid to admit they are wrong that they will try to find any justifcation no matter how flimsy, to try continue to justify the war.